Although we don't have an A.R. or bulletin play for this specific circumstance, I have spoken to my FBS buddies, and all agree that this is not a foul, but maybe not for the specific reasons some of you expressed.
If you look a bit more carefully, A63 initiates a high block, then slides down B53's body and legs - maintaining continuous contact - and is still trying to block B53 by using his shoulder and arm on B53's left leg. At this time, A64 initiates a high block on B53. So, teammates are simultaneously blocking an opponent, one high and one low. These are active blocks, and not a case of the defender (B53) stumbling over an uninvolved opponent's body. Without seeing the entire action, it may appear to be a chop block.
However, A63's block started high and was/is continuous. The consensus is that we are to apply the same principle to A63's block as we would if it was a solo block. Since it started high, and is continuous, it is a legal block, and NOT treated as a low block, for the purposes of the chop block rule. So, this is not a foul for a chop block.
Another example of the fact that we must see the entire action to be able to properly rule on that action. This is not a criticism of the covering officials or crew, because, with player safety being a major element of the rules and our officiating, I am afraid a majority of us would have thrown on this, too - unless we saw the whole thing. And seeing this entire sequence of action would have consumed a lot of time, meaning we wouldn't be looking at anything else. And we try not to have tunnel vision. So, just unfortunate this was ruled as a chop block. But, being a player safety issue (thus, when in question, it is a foul), I hope this crew did not get a major 'ding' for this.
Robert
